CFP expansion discussion

[ButtFumble 5158]

7 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

7 conference games really opens to the door to dramatically unbalanced schedules. A team going 6-1 when they got Kansas and Tech going to the CCG over a team going 5-2 when they got OU and Texas is a pretty lame outcome, esp if they didn't play each other.

Imagine a #1 OU going 12-0 and 7-0 in conf with a 31-30 win over Texas.  Texas goes 11-1, 6-1 with only that loss, dominant in all other games.  Iowa State goes 8-4, but is 7-0 in conf and doesn't play either OU or Texas. ISU then goes to CCG over Texas. Texas could be #2 in country but wouldn't be able to win the conf title or get a bye. 

It's just pointless and stupid, not to mention trying to fill 5 OOC games every year isn't going to work when every other conf is playing conf games those weeks. Derp.

common sense has Texas and OU in different divisions with a fixed rivalry game for them and fixed rivalry games for all of the others

ND does fine scheduling 7 OOC games there is no reason Big 12 teams cannot do 5

[notre dame joe 172]

9 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Well, Pete, here's your homework assignment. Find me a season since 1992 in which a league's top-ranked team lost to an 8-4 in their CCG and then wasn't among the top six teams that didn't win their conference, and you'll have your answer. 

Could an upset get two teams in? Uh, yes, no fucking shit Sherlock. How is that even a question? Did upsets in the CCG allow two teams into the BCS? 

There was one year that FSU was playing a sub-.500 GTech in the ACCG and the Noles won by like 5 points.  If I felt like doing homework I'd seek out all the barely passable NFL teams that were structured into the playoffs.

[OrangEngr 1034]

2 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

common sense has Texas and OU in different divisions with a fixed rivalry game for them and fixed rivalry games for all of the others

ND does fine scheduling 7 OOC games there is no reason Big 12 teams cannot do 5

False. Keep them in the same division. That way the loser of RR still would make the playoff if that was their only loss. Zero reason to make them play again in CCG. See 2004 and 2008 (at least)

[Valmy77 13094]

The round robin is by far the best part about this league in all sports. I don't know why you assholes want to ruin that.

Get rid of the CCG, set up a mandatory diet of three sunbelt OOC games, whatever but don't take the round robin away from me. It is such a joke some schools play teams from their own league once every five years.

[camel at sea 589]

9 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

We may not like it for fan service, but it's pretty clear we need to 1) keep the CCG, and 2) stop the round-robin by reducing the in-conf games, which creates more intra-Big12 losses and the perception of a weaker league, especially @ the bottom.  Split by divisions, play a protected rival and add an OOC.  The strength of that OOC can be higher OR lower than the in-conf game we'd be losing depending on how that team wants to schedule.  It's pretty apparent that scheduling cupcakes hasn't damaged the SEC, pretty much the opposite.  So we have lots of data on that.  Or we could add a marquee name if we prefer; I'd go for mid-tier P5 with compelling road trips personally vs. going to Ames (no offense to ISU).

North:  OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU
South:  UT, TTU, BU, TCU, WVU

Play your division and the cross-division opponent.  Miss one of the other four teams from the other division every year.  

Since playing an 8 game slate hurts financially, the Big 12 could probably try working out a mutually beneficial annual OOC series with the ACC.  We wouldn't own the away end of those games but it would give the Big 12 more guaranteed inventory to take to the TV partners when negotiating than only an 8 game conference slate.  Maybe that makes the money good enough.  Setting up a series with the ACC would work well because they have 14 schools.  They'd have flexibility to accommodate their members who have permanent SEC OOC rivals.  I'd imagine Clemson/FSU would want to be involved frequently but they wouldn't have to be.  Getting OOC visits from VaTech, UNC, Miami, Clemson, FSU, etc., in place of a 9th conference game, solves a lot of the home schedule complaints in Austin and in Norman.  Nobody would have to see each other so often that the opponent becomes stale.  
 

[notre dame joe 172]

3 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

The round robin is by far the best part about this league in all sports. I don't know why you assholes want to ruin that.

Get rid of the CCG, set up a mandatory diet of three sunbelt OOC games, whatever but don't take the round robin away from me. It is such a joke some schools play teams from their own league once every five years.

The same way they ruined 100 year old rivalries and diluted the bowls.

[ButtFumble 5158]

10 hours ago, OrangEngr said:

False. Keep them in the same division. That way the loser of RR still would make the playoff if that was their only loss. Zero reason to make them play again in CCG. See 2004 and 2008 (at least)

I don't think this is a major issue

Texas and OU have only met in the returned CCG 1 out of 4 times and the issue you are using would not have been a factor because Texas had beaten OU in the season, but lost to a shitty Maryland from the get go and then had two other conference losses......but even then if Texas had won they would have been in the top 12 and OU probably would have been as well because they were #5 with only the loss to Texas

while Texas was still #9 with the 3 losses and only fell to #14 after losing to OU......so Texas with 4 losses was #14 while OU with one loss to Texas was #5 and it is doubtful that only a second loss to the same Texas team would have dropped them past #12.....considering a 4th loss sent #9 Texas only down to #14

I think this is all the more the case of Texas and OU have the same or better quality teams on their schedule OOC instead of conference and if the Big 12 conference is stronger in general from more OOC games and proper scheduling

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

I love the round robin too.  Prior to it, I didn't pay nearly as much attention to the Texas schools as they weren't annual opponents.  The OK schools were on my radar, but that has more to do with me being able to remember the Big 8.

All the Texas schools have some kind of juice to me these days as we've developed some legitimate history with Tech and Baylor, and to a lesser extent TCU.  Texas was always a game with juice just due to blue blood status, but with the last two games being settled on field goals as the clock expired, it's reached the status of something that people actually want to pay attention to.

I follow all of college football pretty damn close, and the Big 12 has the most consistently entertaining regular season slate of any major conference, and it's completely due to the fact that everyone plays everyone.

That said, I understand why people want to get away from it and would begrudgingly concede that much like the CCG, while it would suck, there are competitive advantages that may force our hand.

[BurntOrange&White 39661]

All we need is 12 10 team conferences and the conference champion from each round robin goes on to play in the cfb playoff ez pz

[4th&Five 41461]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

20 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

We may not like it for fan service, but it's pretty clear we need to 1) keep the CCG, and 2) stop the round-robin by reducing the in-conf games, which creates more intra-Big12 losses and the perception of a weaker league, especially @ the bottom.  Split by divisions, play a protected rival and add an OOC.  The strength of that OOC can be higher OR lower than the in-conf game we'd be losing depending on how that team wants to schedule.  It's pretty apparent that scheduling cupcakes hasn't damaged the SEC, pretty much the opposite.  So we have lots of data on that.  Or we could add a marquee name if we prefer; I'd go for mid-tier P5 with compelling road trips personally vs. going to Ames (no offense to ISU).

Most of your "compelling road trips" would feature a shit atmosphere at the actual game.

For the gameday experience, I doubt most of these mid-tier P5 programs will offer a more entertaining time even if they're in a more scenic or exotic locale.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

On 6/15/2021 at 5:37 AM, notre dame joe said:

What problem is this expansion 'solution' trying to solve?

Probably already answered, but I'm really behind...

Lack of inclusion was laying the groundwork for lawsuits against the CFB Playoff structure, specifically from the AAC.   This is basically getting ahead to control the process than having terms dictated to you from outside.

[TXSooner518 2432]

54 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Most of your "compelling road trips" would feature a shit atmosphere at the actual game.

For the gameday experience, I doubt most of these mid-tier P5 programs will offer a more entertaining time even if they're in a more scenic or exotic locale.

Also again it's just pie in the sky. Notre Dame being able to schedule OOC games isn't the same as the B12 trying to add 20 OOC games in the middle of the fucking season when everyone else is playing conference games. And for every "oh we could play FSU or Clemson" there is a Wake Forest or Syracuse that is just blah blah blah. 

I do enjoy making road trips, and am going to Tulane this year, and plan on hitting most of OU's OOC games on the road over the next 20 years, but yeah, good competitive games in fun atmospheres are going to be few and far between.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Also again it's just pie in the sky. Notre Dame being able to schedule OOC games isn't the same as the B12 trying to add 20 OOC games in the middle of the fucking season when everyone else is playing conference games. And for every "oh we could play FSU or Clemson" there is a Wake Forest or Syracuse that is just blah blah blah. 

I do enjoy making road trips, and am going to Tulane this year, and plan on hitting most of OU's OOC games on the road over the next 20 years, but yeah, good competitive games in fun atmospheres are going to be few and far between.

I plan to go when ISU plays at Tulane in a few years, but a lot of that has to do with the timeline likely being available.

In terms of the actual game, I'd rather ISU play Nebraska in middle-of-the-road Lincoln in a charged up atmosphere than go to Tulane where there will be 5,000 home fans who probably care more about LSU and 20,000 drunk Iowans descending on Bourbon Street.  And New Orleans is one of my favorite cities on the planet.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Al_4_ISU

[TXSooner518 2432]

Right, New Orleans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln, but I'm def looking more forward to attending OU @ Nebraska next year more than OU @ Tulane this year. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Article is very much worth reading.  Lots of nuggets.  A few below:

 

...Mark Keenum, the Mississippi State president and the chair of the CFP’s highest governance body, the Board of Managers, approached CFP executive director Bill Hancock in January 2019 with a directive: examine the playoff...

 

...The Board of Managers is expected to rubber stamp a 12-team proposal that grants guaranteed spots to the six highest-ranked conference champions while allotting at-large bids to the next six highest-ranked teams.

“Ultimately next Tuesday, the Board of Managers will say, ‘Carry on and continue!’ ” says Thompson. “Or they’ll say, ‘Good plan but we’d rather just stay at four.’ I don’t suspect that’s going to happen.”

After all, the presidents were the ones who really wanted this to begin with.

In fact, the working group was under internal pressure from the presidents—something overshadowed in this entire endeavor. During the two years of work, Swarbrick was responsible for updating the presidents two different times, both of which featured no real updates at all.

“The second time I gave that update, they made it very clear that they didn’t want a repeat the third time,” Swarbrick says...

 

...In the early days, they established one very important goal: grant access, in some way, to the Group of 5. From there, things got easier. They spent the majority of their time modeling five potential brackets: a seven, eight, nine, 10 and 12-team playoff, each with a half-dozen or more variations. Before reaching that point, though, Bowlsby says the committee at least briefly studied a 24-team bracket.

“We never really gave serious consideration to 24, but it was on the board,” he says. “We knew it worked for FCS.”

They attempted to poke holes in each of their models. For instance, 24 and 16-team models would be too many extra games. An eight-team model—one of the heavy favorites early on—posed other problems. Guaranteeing six conference champions a spot in an eight-team model meant that only two at-large teams got in.

“Going from four at-larges like we have now to two at-larges just didn’t make a lot of sense,” Hancock says.

Sankey says he was against such an eight-team model, describing the decreasing number of at-large selections as “counterintuitive” to expansion.

While he supported an eight team at-large model—often described as a “best eight”—he acknowledged the expectation from others to have guaranteed access...

 

...Even Swarbrick acknowledges that he originally entered the negotiations thinking 12 was too many.

“No one saw this model coming when we started,” he says. “Once you got to where you thought it was appropriate to have six, the analysis and gap analysis and who was left out, it started to move you to 12.”

In modeling of the last seven years, the 12-team proposal would have only included four teams that finished outside the committee’s final top 12 rankings, the worst of which was ranked 20th. All four were a Group of 5 conference champion.

Automatic qualifiers were a nonstarter, group members say. The notion of AQs had become a “dirty word” that commissioners wanted to avoid, Swarbrick says, hence their decision to guarantee spots not to Power 5 conference champions but to the six highest-ranked conference champions.

“What if Trevor Lawrence got hurt in the first series of the ACC championship game and Pitt beat Clemson?” asks Swarbrick. “Those specific examples led us to that conclusion...”

 

...Even their fellow commissioners knew very little about the group’s progress and meeting content. They were aware only that a group was examining the future of the playoff. Swarbrick occasionally updated them, keeping things exceptionally vague.

Working group members feared that, if news escaped, outside scrutiny would have ruined the entire endeavor. For two years, no more than eight people knew the details of the group’s discussions....

[conVINCEd 21468]

14 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Right, New Orleans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln, but I'm def looking more forward to attending OU @ Nebraska next year more than OU @ Tulane this year. 

Let’s just add Tulane and UNLV and be done with it.

[n64ra 1078]

14 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

The round robin is by far the best part about this league in all sports. I don't know why you assholes want to ruin that.

Get rid of the CCG, set up a mandatory diet of three sunbelt OOC games, whatever but don't take the round robin away from me. It is such a joke some schools play teams from their own league once every five years.

The problem is lack of consistency. The Big 12 does round robin but no other P5 conference does (or can with current sizes). Take away the Big 12 CCC and everyone else still has a CCC. It's stupid and hurts the members of the Big 12 to be so different. It's easier to change the Big 12 than two or three of the other P5 conferences so that's why fans want to change the Big 12.

[TXSooner518 2432]

But the thing is, no one needs to change just b/c the B12 is different!  Also just b/c you are different isn't worse. Pod scheduling would be a huge boost to conference scheduling, esp for a conference without a title game. The first conference to go to that model will be "different" but not worse. You get fresher matchups and avoid competitive imbalance in divisions that ends up with one division sending a sacrificial lamb to the CCG year after year after year. 

B12 in hoops does a full double round robin. Other conferences don't. The world keeps spinning. And the B12 has the most "accurate" reg season champ.

[ButtFumble 5158]

45 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

But the thing is, no one needs to change just b/c the B12 is different!  Also just b/c you are different isn't worse. Pod scheduling would be a huge boost to conference scheduling, esp for a conference without a title game. The first conference to go to that model will be "different" but not worse. You get fresher matchups and avoid competitive imbalance in divisions that ends up with one division sending a sacrificial lamb to the CCG year after year after year. 

B12 in hoops does a full double round robin. Other conferences don't. The world keeps spinning. And the B12 has the most "accurate" reg season champ.

basketball is not the same at all because of the number of games played and the number of OOC games played which still gives the Big 12 teams with a good enough OOC to make the tournament without winning the conference or the conference tournament

and the fact that pretty much all the Big 12 basketball teams play a high quality OOC (and win more than they lose) helps the Big 12 even in conference and with a lot of teams going barely above .500 in conference and still make the tournament

and you are correct just because the Big 12 does something "different" in football than the others does not make it worse.....but what the Big 12 actually does is in fact worse

more conference games (no matter how many teams in the conference) means more guaranteed losses for the conference no matter what.....that automatically places the Big 12 in a position where there are 5 more additional losses guaranteed to the conference....and in a 10 team conference that matters

in a larger conference even playing 9 conference games (which is still stupid) you have the ability to miss some teams and often you will miss the really really horrible teams or if you get a really horrible team with 1 conference win you will also get a team that has a really good record including a good conference record

in the Big 12 every single team impacts the direct schedule of every other team AND in addition they also impact the quality of other other member.....which also transfers through the conference

so having a Big 12 team on the schedule that is 1-11 hurts your schedule directly.....and then that 1-11 team on all the other member's schedule makes those other members have a lower scheduling quality.....which lowers your yet again for all those other conference members

in the Big 10 many teams will avoid that direct impact of that 1-11 team on their schedule and some might avoid most of the impact of that 1-11 team on the schedule of other conference members as well

[Huckleberry 32703]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

basketball is not the same at all because of the number of games played and the number of OOC games played which still gives the Big 12 teams with a good enough OOC to make the tournament without winning the conference or the conference tournament

and the fact that pretty much all the Big 12 basketball teams play a high quality OOC (and win more than they lose) helps the Big 12 even in conference and with a lot of teams going barely above .500 in conference and still make the tournament

and you are correct just because the Big 12 does something "different" in football than the others does not make it worse.....but what the Big 12 actually does is in fact worse

more conference games (no matter how many teams in the conference) means more guaranteed losses for the conference no matter what.....that automatically places the Big 12 in a position where there are 5 more additional losses guaranteed to the conference....and in a 10 team conference that matters

in a larger conference even playing 9 conference games (which is still stupid) you have the ability to miss some teams and often you will miss the really really horrible teams or if you get a really horrible team with 1 conference win you will also get a team that has a really good record including a good conference record

in the Big 12 every single team impacts the direct schedule of every other team AND in addition they also impact the quality of other other member.....which also transfers through the conference

so having a Big 12 team on the schedule that is 1-11 hurts your schedule directly.....and then that 1-11 team on all the other member's schedule makes those other members have a lower scheduling quality.....which lowers your yet again for all those other conference members

in the Big 10 many teams will avoid that direct impact of that 1-11 team on their schedule and some might avoid most of the impact of that 1-11 team on the schedule of other conference members as well

Every single problem you have is because of the Big 12's historically terrible marketing and PR work, not because of what the Big 12 does with its schedule.

Big 12 teams have frequently had the most difficult schedules in the country as determined by trusted computer models like Sagarin and Massey. It's because of the round robin. Nobody dodges anybody in the Big 12. Does anyone know about this? No. Because the Big 12 PR department sucks. Maybe it doesn't even exist?

The round robin is the best way to determine a champion, it is the most difficult schedule design, and it has made the Big 12 feel more like a conference than it ever did before. That's not to say that the Big 12 doesn't have issues, but the round robin is not one of them. The round robin is greatness.

Championship game after a round robin? Yeah, dumb beyond measure.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Huckleberry

[ButtFumble 5158]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Every single problem you have is because of the Big 12's historically terrible marketing and PR work, not because of what the Big 12 does with its schedule.

Big 12 teams have frequently had the most difficult schedules in the country as determined by trusted computer models like Sagarin and Massey. It's because of the round robin. Nobody dodges anybody in the Big 12. Does anyone know about this? No. Because the Big 12 PR department sucks. Maybe it doesn't even exist?

The round robin is the best way to determine a champion, it is the most difficult schedule design, and it has made the Big 12 feel more like a conference than it ever did before. That's not to say that the Big 12 doesn't have issues, but the round robin is not one of them. The round robin is greatness.

the Big 12 put out those horrible "errwon play errbodie" and "won truu championz" and no one gave a shit they laughed about it.....because they do not consider 9 Big 12 teams plus one or two other OOC P5s (usually one) for most Big 12 teams to be all that hard....specifically because the Big 12 spends more time beating each other up and less time beating teams from other conferences.....and the guaranteed extra losses to the Big 12 for conference games means the lower level teams just look worse so no one cares that OU and Texas did not dodge Kansas or a really bad Texas Tech or a Baylor that fell off the map

the PAC 12 study replaced a random conference game with an OOC game that was equal to the WORST game on the schedule of each team.....and the strength of schedule and the mathematical improvement of it for all but the worst one or two teams in the conference was statically meaningful

and I am not advocating that the Big 12 replaces a conference game with total garbage, but even if that was done it still improves the strength of schedule for the top teams

it is not the "round robin" that sucks it is the round robin of 9 conference games in a 10 team conference with a 12 game season that sucks

if the Big 12 was 9 teams or 8 teams with a round robin it would still not be ideal to have every member play every other member in terms of overall conference strength and more so with a CCG, but the additional OOC game or games would help a great deal more than the all around combination of the worst choice possible (well besides a 13 team conference playing all 12 conference games to guarantee a conference that overall has a .500 record every single year)

 

[TXSooner518 2432]

Please show me the math of how, say, Oklahoma replacing a random conference game every year with trash improves its strength of schedule. Please. 

[ButtFumble 5158]

38 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Please show me the math of how, say, Oklahoma replacing a random conference game every year with trash improves its strength of schedule. Please. 

https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2014/8/12/5969965/college-football-playoff-strength-of-schedule-conference-8-9-games-pac-12-sec-big-ten-big-acc

 

once again I am not advocating that Texas or OU place total trash on the schedule nor am I advocating that for most if not all of the Big 12

but above shows the math

here are the key parts

Here's what we're going to do.  We will simulate a full season under both an 8-game and a 9-game conference format and compare the final strength-of-schedule ratings.  The only difference between the 8- and 9-game schedules is that in the 8-game schedule I replaced a confrence opponent with a weak nonconference opponent.

 Because one of the biggest issues with 4-game nonconference schedules is weak scheduling, I give each Pac-12 team an extremely weak opponent.  These are equal in weakness to the team's worst OOC opponent: Oregon gets another Nicholls State-level team, UCLA gets another New Mexico State, and so on.

Below I list the average strength-of-schedule ratings for each team in our sets of 10,000 simulated seasons.  Again, the only difference between the normal (9-game) schedule and the 8-game schedule is that a non-division conference game is replaced, at random, with a low-level nonconference opponent.

Wow.  Every single team has a better strength of schedule under the 8-game schedule (and those differences are all statistically significant by an enormous margin).

 

so there is the evidence and again it used an extremely weak replacement for a conference game....I would not advocate for this.....but doing this made a major difference in overall strength of schedule

people do not seem to understand how this works.....if Texas plays a conference team that is 1-11 that team impacts the strength of schedule of Texas directly.....then the part that people cannot seem to understand is that the 1-11 team on the schedule of OU also impacts the strength of schedule of OU.....and that lower strength of schedule for OU because of that 1-11 team then impacts Texas again because of the lower strength of schedule of OU.....and then you repeat that for Baylor having a lower strength of schedule because of that 1-11 team.....then Texas also playing Baylor and that lower strength of schedule for Baylor because of that 1-11 team impacts Texas yet again

what people cannot seem to come to grips with is if that 1-11 team went out and beat a total and complete pile of dog shit in the OOC and was 5-0 coming into conference after beating total dog shit in the OOC and then they were winless in conference so they are 5-7.......well that 5-7 team that beat total dogshit for those 5 wins is still a better team in terms of strength of schedule in the schedule of Texas than that 1-11 team is even if that 1-11 team lost to all ranked teams.....because a "shitty win" is always better than the non-existent "good loss"

and that 5-7 team that looks better directly in the strength of schedule of Texas also looks better on the strength of schedule of Baylor and OU.....and thus when Baylor and OU play Texas they have a better strength of schedule as well.....because one of their wins was against a 5-7 team instead of a 1-11 team......even if that 5-7 team beat total and complete shit......because a shitty win is always better than a loss period all the more so when you are talking about a really bad team

the above article proves that without refute

and in the case of the Big 12 if you can get that team that is mired at 1-11 and 2-10 to start to get some traction (even against shitty teams) and they can get to 5-7 and then 6-6 and recruit better or make a bowl game and get extra practice and they can consistently avoid 1-11 and be around 6-6 and you can get all the bad teams in the conference to hover closer to 5-7 and 6-6 well that helps the conference year in and year out and you build on that

I am not advocating for ANY Big 12 member to load up on 2 D1-AA teams and the dregs of CUSA, but I will say there are teams that need to give a lot less shit about "10 P5 games" or even "9 P5 games" and worry more about "wins"

and I am certainly not advocating for Texas to load up on shit as well.....but Texas and OU need to understand that shitty 1-11 teams in the schedule in conference hurts them in many many ways and is horribly worse for Texas and OU than having a conference member that is 5-7 and beat up on a lot of shitty teams

all the more so Texas and OU need to understand that if they can occasionally avoid that shitty 1-11 team that helps them even more

Edited June 16, 2021 by ButtFumble

[TXSooner518 2432]

So you're saying if ALL the B12 teams play shit OOC that will boost OU's schedule strength, which is a different animal. I thought you previously said OU doing it themselves would boost their own schedule, which is false.

And also making OU and Texas play each other every year, while allowing other members of the conference to skip one (or both!) of them is going to really screw OU and Texas as far as their overall record, and allow slop teams to backdoor a CCG spot because they played Kansas instead of OU, which is lame as fuck. 

Also no one is going to be fooled that beating a 4-8 Kansas is actually a good win, comparing to a 1-11 Kansas. The metrics that they are usually looking at is wins over ranked teams. The way that teams like TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, West Va, etc get ranked and get considered to be a good win is by beating good teams. Look at how disrespected Baylor was due to their shit OOC in 2014. Add two more of those games instead of P5 games and what happens?

Edited June 16, 2021 by TXSooner518

[Guest]

If we only play 8 Conf games, someone misses on Texas or OU, while someone else misses out on KU.

That's dumb.

Edited June 16, 2021 by slorch

[ButtFumble 5158]

49 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

So you're saying if ALL the B12 teams play shit OOC that will boost OU's schedule strength, which is a different animal. I thought you previously said OU doing it themselves would boost their own schedule, which is false.

And also making OU and Texas play each other every year, while allowing other members of the conference to skip one (or both!) of them is going to really screw OU and Texas as far as their overall record, and allow slop teams to backdoor a CCG spot because they played Kansas instead of OU, which is lame as fuck. 

Also no one is going to be fooled that beating a 4-8 Kansas is actually a good win, comparing to a 1-11 Kansas. The metrics that they are usually looking at is wins over ranked teams. The way that teams like TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, West Va, etc get ranked and get considered to be a good win is by beating good teams. Look at how disrespected Baylor was due to their shit OOC in 2014. Add two more of those games instead of P5 games and what happens?

 

1. I realize you are an OU fan, but fuck I thought it was Dexter Manly at OkState that could not fucking read

2. no I have never advocated for Texas or OU or any member of the Big 12 to play a total shit OOC schedule I have made that extremely clear including in the post just prior to this

I HAVE advocated that some teams in the Big 12 would benefit from avoiding an ISU team that has started to play really good or a TCU team that is having a good season or Texas or OU or a WVU team having a good season and instead mixing in a Wake Forest or Purdue or Indiana and more so a benefit from playing even a mid level CUSA or MWC or Sunbelt team for an OOC game instead of a P5 game (while still having 8 or even 9 P5 games) because as of now pretty much every Big 12 member top to bottom plays 10 P5 teams).....even 8 P5 games with some not so great teams would be better for the Big 12 teams that have been going 1-11 to 4-8 consistently for the last few years (or longer) vs playing 10 P5 games with 9 of them from the Big 12

and there is no one out there looking at the "metrics" of a 4-8 Kansas and number of ranked teams played they are looking at the metrics of the top teams in the Big 12 not playing teams that are 1-11 and 2-10

you seemed to miss the entire point of the above article.....that is a turd in the punch bowl makes the whole punch bowl shittier....we are not pretending (unless we are clueless) that a Kansas that has gone 1-11 and 2-10 for 5 years straight suddenly needs to schedule to make the playoffs....they just need to find a way to be less shitty on the schedule of other conference members or perhaps not on the schedule of a couple of conference members for a couple of years while making the schedule of all the members they do play less shitty by getting some wins

3. yes Texas and OU would play every year.....that is part of being the big swinging dicks in the conference and part of having a fan base filled with fucking fans that want to be in the SEC SEC SEC because "all these teams in the Big 12 suck cocks and have 1-11 to 5-7 records all the time" or "we could be in the Big 10 playing tOSU, Penn State, UW, Michigan ect"......while ignoring that if Texas and OU were in the Big 10 they would rarely play those teams in a 16 team conference because they would be in the division with a bitch ass Nebraska and a pile of other shit

that is also part of ignoring that if the Big 12 moved to a place where the shitty teams in the conference could start going 5-7 and 6-6 much more often than they go 1-11 and 2-10 well some of those teams if they continued to adjust their schedule frequently might actually become competitive and a much larger % of the conference would be competitive

4. the numbers I showed make it clear that a 4-8 Kansas is better for strength of schedule it is laughable that anyone would look at Kansas with 1-11 and all P5 losses and think they are somehow better than a 4-8 Kansas.....and again you miss the point where as Kansas gets to 4-8 more consistently they have their AD get off their ass and slightly adjust their schedule to be better

and yes you are correct about Baylor and that was the fucking fault of a lazy dumb ass AD at Baylor and the fault of a Big 12 group think "won truu championz" and "errwon play errboide" dumb fuck line of thinking where "win the Big 12" and that matters

as of now without a change to the playoffs and CFP expansion the Big 12 playing 7 conference games would perhaps need to pass some rules so that Baylor and others do not schedule total and complete shit especially when they become more competitive.....Baylor had ample opportunity to know they had improved to the point where their shitty schedule mattered, but they fell into the dumb trap that "winning the Big 12" mattered and it did not.....they should have adjusted their schedule and they did not and that was their own fucking fault and their own dumb ass move and that should be addressed by the conference loudly and clearly even if not formally

part of that equation is also if people in the Big 12 are  not happy with the shitty OOC schedule of Baylor then try fucking beating them when they have that shitty schedule then it is a non-issue

but more importantly with CFP expansion it meaningfully less important if Baylor fucks up and has a shitty OOC schedule because if they win like they did in 2014 they would still be in the playoffs, but they would have made a harder time for themselves in the playoffs....and more importantly for other members especially those with a proactive AD that adjust schedules frequently they can still have that OOC strength of schedule to their advantage.....along with having an overall better conference strength of schedule to help them

the math showed above makes it clear that replacing a conference game with total shit benefits pretty much the whole conference especially the TOP teams and the top teams are free to not make as drastic of a change in their schedule

and with playoff expansion there is less risk to the conference overall even if a team like Baylor does go to complete shit because it is not 4 slots that are being played for it is 12 and other members of the conference that have done things in a smarter way can benefit from having a smarter and more proactive AD and a better crafted schedule

[ButtFumble 5158]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

If we only play 8 Conf games, someone misses on Texas or OU, while someone else misses out on KU.

That's dumb.

 

but every other conference has that.....the Big 12 had that until it went to 10 members.....it is only "dumb" to people that think anyone outside of the Big 12 gives a shit about the round robin or that it is somehow "tougher" or "harder" or "better".....while it drives down the wins for the conference overall

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

but every other conference has that.....the Big 12 had that until it went to 10 members.....it is only "dumb" to people that think anyone outside of the Big 12 gives a shit about the round robin or that it is somehow "tougher" or "harder" or "better".....while it drives down the wins for the conference overall

Point taken.

I've long advocated 9 conference games for everyone. For 12 team conferences, it makes sense with biannual rescheduling of the 3 opposite division opponents. Obviously for 10 teams it works.

Fuck the SEC and their 8 game bullshit.  I don't see 9 games as some badge of honor.  IT is simply what's right. If SEC insists upon 8 games, fine.  Every team gets a loss for not playing 9 like the rest of the world.  Enjoy your cupcake.

College football gives not a fuck about 'what's right' when it comes to scheduling.

Edited June 17, 2021 by slorch

[Hurtlocker 2208]

3 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

Please show me the math of how, say, Oklahoma replacing a random conference game every year with trash improves its strength of schedule. Please. 

The concept is really that you get more wins throughout the conference if you gift everyone one more win.   The 9 conference games give 4.5 more teams a loss.  

This is how the SEC kind of built its PR machine showing all the big wins.  But its kind of missing the bigger point.  An 8 game conference schedule isn't what blew up the SEC's brand, not even close.  What mattered is that from 2005 they won 11 championships with 4 different teams.   Do they get a boost by having a few more wins at the end of the season, yes, but what set them up isn't that, its that they dominated championships

Case in point, the ACC, with 8 conference games, is not viewed the same.  Yes FSU and Clemson got championships in that time, making them the second most successful, but also went 0-6 last year in the post season.   

So you have to win when you get there, playing 8 doesn't do that.   

Winning when you get there does.  

Edited June 17, 2021 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

 

but every other conference has that.....the Big 12 had that until it went to 10 members.....it is only "dumb" to people that think anyone outside of the Big 12 gives a shit about the round robin or that it is somehow "tougher" or "harder" or "better".....while it drives down the wins for the conference overall

I'd agree that at the beginning of the CFP it didn't matter.   But Oklahoma and Iowa State last year had a combined 5 losses and both were in the top ten.  Granted, Covid was crazy, but the only other team with three losses in the top ten was Florida, who played in the SEC championship game too and has multiple natties in the past 15 years

[Hurtlocker 2208]

If they approve the 12 model, there is zero reason for the Big 12 to expand any more.  Reason #1, eight isn't getting you anything, especially not if you're just replacing a conference game with a P5 game.   

I'd put money down right now that you'll see the Power Five programs start to shed the lower schools for more bigger games.   If you have to give people more access, then you want to stand out more to drive them back out.   The P5 could schedule 12 P5 games by getting rid of shit games and cross pollenating and I guarantee you no other AAC team is getting in except the champion.   They'll dominate by scheduling different.

Reason #2, this expansion will destroy the Sugar/Rose/Orange tie ins, those will basically become playoff games, a major reason why the 12 pays 3x more. Highly likely that, like today, while granting access, the P5 will split 80% of the proceeds.  At 3x though, when the post season now rivals the regular season valuation, having less teams makes everyone more money

[BurntOrange&White 39661]

12 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Big 12 teams have frequently had the most difficult schedules in the country as determined by trusted computer models like Sagarin and Massey. It's because of the round robin. Nobody dodges anybody in the Big 12. Does anyone know about this? No. Because the Big 12 PR department sucks. Maybe it doesn't even exist?

 

[BurntOrange&White 39661]

8 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

If they approve the 12 model, there is zero reason for the Big 12 to expand any more.  Reason #1, eight isn't getting you anything, especially not if you're just replacing a conference game with a P5 game.   

I'd put money down right now that you'll see the Power Five programs start to shed the lower schools for more bigger games.   If you have to give people more access, then you want to stand out more to drive them back out.   The P5 could schedule 12 P5 games by getting rid of shit games and cross pollenating and I guarantee you no other AAC team is getting in except the champion.   They'll dominate by scheduling different.

Reason #2, this expansion will destroy the Sugar/Rose/Orange tie ins, those will basically become playoff games, a major reason why the 12 pays 3x more. Highly likely that, like today, while granting access, the P5 will split 80% of the proceeds.  At 3x though, when the post season now rivals the regular season valuation, having less teams makes everyone more money

Depends on the teams you add honestly. If you can improve the conference by adding quality teams then go for it and just go back to the old model.

 

Teams that would do that in no particular order: Notre Dame, BYU, Boise State, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCONN(basketball really). 

 

That's about it.

[TXSooner518 2432]

The "one true champion" got mocked because then the B12 turned around and tried to have their cake and eat it and declare co-champions. The actual concept wasn't mocked.

As far as improving everyone's schedule by replacing a conf game with an OOC game, that only works if they actually win, right? Right now, the 9th conference game adds a record of 5-5 to conference teams. You have focused solely on the extra 5 losses, but ignore the extra 5 guaranteed wins. 

So if you replace that game with an OOC game and the conference goes 4-6 in those OOC games, you actually just made the overall record shittier than it was before. That's being ignored. The conference has to go better than 5-5 to have any benefit. Is going, say, 6-4, an improvement of one game over .500 for the entire conference that big of a deal? Given that the B12 had OOC losses to 3 Sun Belt teams last year as well as a very narrowly-averted disaster loss to something called Houston Baptist, that's hardly a guarantee. Also, our TV partners are not going to pay the same for TCU-Abilene Christian as they would for TCU-West Virginia. So either you lose TV money or you schedule loseable games. Period. 

Remember also that the missed conference game for some of the teams is going to be a shitty team. Someone is going to miss Kansas, someone is going to miss the 9th best team, someone is going to miss the 8th best team, etc. It isn't like every mid-level B12 team is going to miss OU and play East Popcorn State instead and magically now be 7-5 instead of 6-6. Someone is going to miss Kansas and maybe lose an extra game instead now. 

 

 

[Zeus 5950]

14 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

 

1. I realize you are an OU fan, but fuck I thought it was Dexter Manly at OkState that could not fucking read

2. no I have never advocated for Texas or OU or any member of the Big 12 to play a total shit OOC schedule I have made that extremely clear including in the post just prior to this

I HAVE advocated that some teams in the Big 12 would benefit from avoiding an ISU team that has started to play really good or a TCU team that is having a good season or Texas or OU or a WVU team having a good season and instead mixing in a Wake Forest or Purdue or Indiana and more so a benefit from playing even a mid level CUSA or MWC or Sunbelt team for an OOC game instead of a P5 game (while still having 8 or even 9 P5 games) because as of now pretty much every Big 12 member top to bottom plays 10 P5 teams).....even 8 P5 games with some not so great teams would be better for the Big 12 teams that have been going 1-11 to 4-8 consistently for the last few years (or longer) vs playing 10 P5 games with 9 of them from the Big 12

and there is no one out there looking at the "metrics" of a 4-8 Kansas and number of ranked teams played they are looking at the metrics of the top teams in the Big 12 not playing teams that are 1-11 and 2-10

you seemed to miss the entire point of the above article.....that is a turd in the punch bowl makes the whole punch bowl shittier....we are not pretending (unless we are clueless) that a Kansas that has gone 1-11 and 2-10 for 5 years straight suddenly needs to schedule to make the playoffs....they just need to find a way to be less shitty on the schedule of other conference members or perhaps not on the schedule of a couple of conference members for a couple of years while making the schedule of all the members they do play less shitty by getting some wins

3. yes Texas and OU would play every year.....that is part of being the big swinging dicks in the conference and part of having a fan base filled with fucking fans that want to be in the SEC SEC SEC because "all these teams in the Big 12 suck cocks and have 1-11 to 5-7 records all the time" or "we could be in the Big 10 playing tOSU, Penn State, UW, Michigan ect"......while ignoring that if Texas and OU were in the Big 10 they would rarely play those teams in a 16 team conference because they would be in the division with a bitch ass Nebraska and a pile of other shit

that is also part of ignoring that if the Big 12 moved to a place where the shitty teams in the conference could start going 5-7 and 6-6 much more often than they go 1-11 and 2-10 well some of those teams if they continued to adjust their schedule frequently might actually become competitive and a much larger % of the conference would be competitive

4. the numbers I showed make it clear that a 4-8 Kansas is better for strength of schedule it is laughable that anyone would look at Kansas with 1-11 and all P5 losses and think they are somehow better than a 4-8 Kansas.....and again you miss the point where as Kansas gets to 4-8 more consistently they have their AD get off their ass and slightly adjust their schedule to be better

and yes you are correct about Baylor and that was the fucking fault of a lazy dumb ass AD at Baylor and the fault of a Big 12 group think "won truu championz" and "errwon play errboide" dumb fuck line of thinking where "win the Big 12" and that matters

as of now without a change to the playoffs and CFP expansion the Big 12 playing 7 conference games would perhaps need to pass some rules so that Baylor and others do not schedule total and complete shit especially when they become more competitive.....Baylor had ample opportunity to know they had improved to the point where their shitty schedule mattered, but they fell into the dumb trap that "winning the Big 12" mattered and it did not.....they should have adjusted their schedule and they did not and that was their own fucking fault and their own dumb ass move and that should be addressed by the conference loudly and clearly even if not formally

part of that equation is also if people in the Big 12 are  not happy with the shitty OOC schedule of Baylor then try fucking beating them when they have that shitty schedule then it is a non-issue

but more importantly with CFP expansion it meaningfully less important if Baylor fucks up and has a shitty OOC schedule because if they win like they did in 2014 they would still be in the playoffs, but they would have made a harder time for themselves in the playoffs....and more importantly for other members especially those with a proactive AD that adjust schedules frequently they can still have that OOC strength of schedule to their advantage.....along with having an overall better conference strength of schedule to help them

the math showed above makes it clear that replacing a conference game with total shit benefits pretty much the whole conference especially the TOP teams and the top teams are free to not make as drastic of a change in their schedule

and with playoff expansion there is less risk to the conference overall even if a team like Baylor does go to complete shit because it is not 4 slots that are being played for it is 12 and other members of the conference that have done things in a smarter way can benefit from having a smarter and more proactive AD and a better crafted schedule

you are probably right but

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

31 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

The "one true champion" got mocked because then the B12 turned around and tried to have their cake and eat it and declare co-champions. The actual concept wasn't mocked.

As far as improving everyone's schedule by replacing a conf game with an OOC game, that only works if they actually win, right? Right now, the 9th conference game adds a record of 5-5 to conference teams. You have focused solely on the extra 5 losses, but ignore the extra 5 guaranteed wins. 

So if you replace that game with an OOC game and the conference goes 4-6 in those OOC games, you actually just made the overall record shittier than it was before. That's being ignored. The conference has to go better than 5-5 to have any benefit. Is going, say, 6-4, an improvement of one game over .500 for the entire conference that big of a deal? Given that the B12 had OOC losses to 3 Sun Belt teams last year as well as a very narrowly-averted disaster loss to something called Houston Baptist, that's hardly a guarantee. Also, our TV partners are not going to pay the same for TCU-Abilene Christian as they would for TCU-West Virginia. So either you lose TV money or you schedule loseable games. Period. 

Remember also that the missed conference game for some of the teams is going to be a shitty team. Someone is going to miss Kansas, someone is going to miss the 9th best team, someone is going to miss the 8th best team, etc. It isn't like every mid-level B12 team is going to miss OU and play East Popcorn State instead and magically now be 7-5 instead of 6-6. Someone is going to miss Kansas and maybe lose an extra game instead now. 

 

 

Exactly.  Baylor was the one true champion.  TCU was clearly the better team by the end of the year.

The Big 12 got shit because they tried to say TCU was really the co-champ when Baylor beat them head to head.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Al_4_ISU

[Zeus 5950]

26 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

The "one true champion" got mocked because then the B12 turned around and tried to have their cake and eat it and declare co-champions. The actual concept wasn't mocked.

As far as improving everyone's schedule by replacing a conf game with an OOC game, that only works if they actually win, right? Right now, the 9th conference game adds a record of 5-5 to conference teams. You have focused solely on the extra 5 losses, but ignore the extra 5 guaranteed wins. 

So if you replace that game with an OOC game and the conference goes 4-6 in those OOC games, you actually just made the overall record shittier than it was before. That's being ignored. The conference has to go better than 5-5 to have any benefit. Is going, say, 6-4, an improvement of one game over .500 for the entire conference that big of a deal? Given that the B12 had OOC losses to 3 Sun Belt teams last year as well as a very narrowly-averted disaster loss to something called Houston Baptist, that's hardly a guarantee. Also, our TV partners are not going to pay the same for TCU-Abilene Christian as they would for TCU-West Virginia. So either you lose TV money or you schedule loseable games. Period. 

Remember also that the missed conference game for some of the teams is going to be a shitty team. Someone is going to miss Kansas, someone is going to miss the 9th best team, someone is going to miss the 8th best team, etc. It isn't like every mid-level B12 team is going to miss OU and play East Popcorn State instead and magically now be 7-5 instead of 6-6. Someone is going to miss Kansas and maybe lose an extra game instead now. 

The round robin sucks shit and there's not a good solution with 10 teams.

Just add two teams and suddenly there's a perfect solution, play 8 conference games like everyone else in the country. One cross-division rivalry and two rotating cross-division games. Still may end up being Texas/OU rematch in the Championship game but that's exactly what it always is going to be every year anyway. 

No cupcakes, OOC should include a minimum of 1 P5 game and 3 FBS games. 

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Exactly.  Baylor was the one true champion.  TCU was clearly the better team by the end of the year.

The Big 12 got shit because they tried to say TCU was really the co-champ when Baylor beat them head to head.

Solution - Championship game just like every other conference. I just wish they would stop putting it in Jerry World what a dead lifeless shithole to play CFB in.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

Just now, Zeus said:

The round robin sucks shit and there's not a good solution with 10 teams.

Just add two teams and suddenly there's a perfect solution, play 8 conference games like everyone else in the country. One cross-division rivalry and two rotating cross-division games. Still may end up being Texas/OU rematch in the Championship game but that's exactly what it always is going to be every year anyway. 

No cupcakes, OOC should include a minimum of 1 P5 game and 3 FBS games. 

Solution - Championship game just like every other conference. I just wish they would stop putting it in Jerry World what a dead lifeless shithole to play CFB in.

You realize 3 of the 5 power conferences play 9 games, right?  Big 10 and Pac 12 both have divisions and a CCG and 9 conference games.

[TXSooner518 2432]

Divisions are also terrible, and if you maintain the CCG, there should at least be pod scheduling and the top 2 teams playing, to avoid dipshittery where the 3 best teams are in one division, so you have some scrub team in the CCG which may cost the B12 a bid b/c if they win they may not be a top 6 champ. The only non-stupid part about the B12 CCG is that it's actually the top 2 teams in the conference. 

If you have a sub to The Athletic, Andy Staples has a column on it today. 

And the concept of "playing every team in the conference to see who is the best" being shit is pure nonsense. There is literally no better way to determine the best team. No one in a vacuum would say "Having a group of 12 teams, with each team playing 8 others, then arbitrarily grouping them into two groups of 6, then have the top team in each arbitrary group of 6 play each other" is a better plan than "Have a group of 10 teams, everyone plays everyone, best record is the best, if there's a tie, whoever won that game is the best."  No one. It's just some odd SEC dick envy or something that makes people want the first option.

[utee94 15746]

12 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

No one. It's just some odd SEC dick envy or something that makes people want the first option.

I think the crux of it is in Al's post below:

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You realize 3 of the 5 power conferences play 9 games, right?  Big 10 and Pac 12 both have divisions and a CCG and 9 conference games.

Because the thing is, the CFP champ in almost every year is coming out of the two conferences that DON'T play the 9 conference games.  For the most part, the CFP champs keep coming from one of the two conferences that have divisions, only play 8 conference games, hide the best teams in each division from each other as much as possible during the regular season,  and as a glorious SEC-bonus, they schedule an OOC patsy late in the season to help with overall conference team rankings, which influences the selection committee's choices in the post-season.

People are so focused on "having the conference place teams into the CFP, and win the CFP" that they no longer care about actually watching competitive or entertaining games.  They just want the easiest path to the CFP.  It's a result of the nationalization of the sport, the focus on ONLY the national championship, and the 24/7 sports news cycle of mediots force-feeding us all their view of what they (or more likely their disney overlords) think college football should be.  

Edited June 17, 2021 by utee94

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

6 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I think the crux of it is in Al's post below:

Because the thing is, the CFP champ in almost every year is coming out of the two conferences that DON'T play the 9 conference games.  For the most part, the CFP champs keep coming from one of the two conferences that have divisions, only play 8 conference games, hide the best teams in each division from each other as much as possible during the regular season,  and as a glorious SEC-bonus, they schedule an OOC patsy late in the season to help with overall conference team rankings, which influences the selection committee's choices in the post-season.

People are so focused on "having the conference place teams into the CFP, and win the CFP" that they no longer care about actually watching competitive or entertaining games.  They just want the easiest path to the CFP.  It's a result of the nationalization of the sport, the focus on ONLY the national championship, and the 24/7 sports news cycle of mediots force-feeding us all their view of what they (or more likely their disney overlords) think college football should be.  

To be fair, I think that has more to do with Clemson and Bama being on a different level from everyone else, including the teams in their own conference.  Ohio State, OU, Georgia, and Notre Dame are occasionally in that wheeelhouse and that's it.

If Clemson picked swapped out some non-con for Duke or Pitt, I don't think it changes what they've done over the past 7 years.

[utee94 15746]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To be fair, I think that has more to do with Clemson and Bama being on a different level from everyone else, including the teams in their own conference.  Ohio State, OU, Georgia, and Notre Dame are occasionally in that wheeelhouse and that's it.

If Clemson picked swapped out some non-con for Duke or Pitt, I don't think it changes what they've done over the past 7 years.

For sure, but counterpoint-- the SEC has already gotten two teams into the CFP.  The way they structure their schedules and feed the myth, is absolutely affecting the post-season.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

2 minutes ago, utee94 said:

For sure, but counterpoint-- the SEC has already gotten two teams into the CFP.  The way they structure their schedules and feed the myth, is absolutely affecting the post-season.

Yeah, having Georgia and Alabama avoid each other until the CCG is a huge advantage.

The rest of it comes back to a system that allows them this kind of access, and unfortunately the 12 team playoff just seems like a recipe to have 5 SEC teams in every year.

[utee94 15746]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, having Georgia and Alabama avoid each other until the CCG is a huge advantage.

The rest of it comes back to a system that allows them this kind of access, and unfortunately the 12 team playoff just seems like a recipe to have 5 SEC teams in every year.

Yup, I'm definitely against the 12-team playoff, not that anyone's listening to me.  If we must expand, then 5+2+1 is the only setup that makes any sense to me.  But college football has basically left me in the dust as a fan, and the slow slide began decades ago.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

9 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup, I'm definitely against the 12-team playoff, not that anyone's listening to me.  If we must expand, then 5+2+1 is the only setup that makes any sense to me.  But college football has basically left me in the dust as a fan, and the slow slide began decades ago.

The 12 team playoff could be a blast, but it has to have some structural protections to prevent it from becoming an SEC circle jerk.

[utee94 15746]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The 12 team playoff could be a blast, but it has to have some structural protections to prevent it from becoming an SEC circle jerk.

Gonna disagree with you there.  12 teams is too many, and I don't think anyone should ever have byes when there are so few games in college football anyway, and it also doesn't look like there's any plan for protections against the SEC circle jerk.  So in short, this is a terrible plan, and your opinion is terrible, and you should feel ashamed of it.

 

 

[Dnaguy 11777]

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The 12 team playoff could be a blast, but it has to have some structural protections to prevent it from becoming an SEC circle jerk.

[Narrator]: It won't.

The SEC will likely have 4-5 teams every year.

The 8 game conf schedule and divisions almost guarantees it. 

The top 2 teams from each division will all likely always make the playoff with a 5th team sneaking in every 3-4 years.

[Treefidy 1463]

38 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To be fair, I think that has more to do with Clemson and Bama being on a different level from everyone else, including the teams in their own conference.  Ohio State, OU, Georgia, and Notre Dame are occasionally in that wheeelhouse and that's it.

If Clemson picked swapped out some non-con for Duke or Pitt, I don't think it changes what they've done over the past 7 years.

Bama and Clemson are certainly at the top of the past decade+ and tOSU is only a half step behind because of 2 scandals in 7 years that led to coaching change.  Those are the 3 best teams and it’s not even close for the rest.

UGA has been the most overrated team for the past 2 decades, the tallest midget in the SEC whos claim to fame is top 3 recruiting classes that get smashed by Bama every year.  Until they actually prove they can win something they would stop getting the benefit of the doubt.  
 

OU and LSU are that second tier teams who most years can compete and give the top tier a run.

Dome is woefully overmatched when they play the most talented teams, kind of like UGA without the top recruiting classes.  
 

As far as the fewer conference games bolstering rankings/opinions, look no further than aggy.  They were a .500 conference team when they were here, they are still that same .500 conference team but they end up with a better overall record and are now considered a fringe top 5 team, due entirely to the myth of the SEC

It’s pretty damn dumb to handicap your entire conference relative to the competition by playing more games and adding more losses to the combined record.  

[Horn of Gabriel 1590]

For SEC to get 5 in, they need their conf champ, plus 4 of the 6 at-large spots.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  Hmm, we'll see I guess.  I can easily buy 3 and maybe 4 but 5?  I haven't looked into the past several years, would the top-12 rankings support that?

Regardless, the following is true:

• SEC has gotten and will get in the short/medium term more teams into the CFP than the other conferences
• That won't change until SEC starts losing on the field
• You can't beat them on the field w/o getting teams into the playoff, which means...
• You need to do everything you can as a conference to get more teams eligible for the playoff, not kowtow to some idea that RR is "best," or "more pure," "most real" way of getting to 1 true champion, b/c the people who matter with regard to CFP access have demonstrated that they don't care about that
• Which is the reason why people upthread are advocating for BIG12 conference wide shift in scheduling to take out the RR and replicate part of the SEC model for scheduling.  Less in-conf, more OOC, more wins, fewer losses, which...
• Starts the process of breaking the self-fulfilling prophecy the SEC has set up.  Right now we're fighting w/ one hand tied behind our back.  I don't like fighting on an unlevel playing field.